Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cairnius wrote:Yet no one has ever claimed the $10,000 he has said he will pay anyone for each factual error they point out from his work. If he's really lying and fabricating, some conservative group would have taken him up on this, proven their case, and then touted either getting paid or his going back on his word.

There is a difference between a factual error and a lie. I'll prove a lie - in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 the film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. Moore's narration states, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'" The impression left is that the major news groups (CBS and CNN) had called for Gore, but that FOX came in, called for Bush, and managed by dint of, I dunno, peer pressure to get the other stations to call for Bush.

However, as easy investigation shows - the very first channels to call the Florida flip/flop in Bush's favor were...CBS and CNN. Not FOX - if anything they convinced FOX, not the other way around.

However, there is no "factual error" above because Moore never states that FOX called first. Therefore he has lied while not making a factual error. He does this for his purposes of his message and is fairly talented in how he does it, but he does it all the time in all of his movies and thus, at least in my opinion, he lies all the time in his movies irrespective of whether someone can claim $10,000 for proving a "factual error" in them.

Cairnius wrote:Republicans aren't liberals. "Liberal" in its broadest context means "open to respecting many perspectives." It's why liberals are so politically ineffective - they're never willing to just say "Your opinion sucks, I'm ignoring it and burying what you want to do."

Republicans are liberals in the actual sense of what liberal means. That's why we live in the land of religious freedom with a first amendment. Republicans are conservative liberals and Democrats are progressive liberals. They are both liberals.

Frazzled wrote:Thats actually incorrect. We are substantially more concservative than the 1800s. You forget all those evil drugs were legal in the late 1800s when no one gave a BLEEP.

Everything is a cycle, except of course the US is getting older. Older people are crankier people, and usually substantially more conservative, because like, they've got their stuff.

You can twist it that way if you want to, but if you look at the broadest possible swathes of American culture from then and now, to say that we're more conservative than in the 19th century is pretty laughable, Frazz. It couldn't be less true.


Oh, and Ahtman, ad hom. I win.

Thor665 wrote:There is a difference between a factual error and a lie. I'll prove a lie - in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 the film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. Moore's narration states, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'" The impression left is that the major news groups (CBS and CNN) had called for Gore, but that FOX came in, called for Bush, and managed by dint of, I dunno, peer pressure to get the other stations to call for Bush.

However, as easy investigation shows - the very first channels to call the Florida flip/flop in Bush's favor were...CBS and CNN. Not FOX - if anything they convinced FOX, not the other way around.

However, there is no "factual error" above because Moore never states that FOX called first. Therefore he has lied while not making a factual error. He does this for his purposes of his message and is fairly talented in how he does it, but he does it all the time in all of his movies and thus, at least in my opinion, he lies all the time in his movies irrespective of whether someone can claim $10,000 for proving a "factual error" in them.

I'd entertain the conversation but I haven't seen FHT 9/11 since it was in theaters. So, you're saying that CBS and CNN called Florida for Bush, not Gore like MM's footage depicted? I'm not sure I follow your argument.

I'd also want to refresh my memory as to what footage he used, and see some clear-cut evidence as to when what was aired.

Thor665 wrote:Republicans are liberals in the actual sense of what liberal means. That's why we live in the land of religious freedom with a first amendment. Republicans are conservative liberals and Democrats are progressive liberals. They are both liberals.

Republicans don't fit into the majority of any definitions of "liberal" I could find that pertain to politics:


1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

No.


2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Certainly not.


3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

Inasmuch as liberalism is #1 and #2, then no.


4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

When they are in favor of gay marriage and pro-choice, I'll say this isn't a "No."


5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Most certainly not. We only need look back to Bush's first term and how the Republicans demonized the anti-war crowd.


6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Yes.


7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

No. Racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are rampant in the Republican Party.


8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

My God, no. "Strict constructionism" is a Republican judicial tenet.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

No. Racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are rampant in the Republican Party.

You're correct. They need to be inclusive and include grand dragons of the Klu Kulx Klan like the Democratic party has.

Well 'm out. This discussion can't go anywhere. Never argue with a true believer.




Edit: yes we're much less conservative now...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html

Frazzled wrote:You're correct. They need to be inclusive and include grand dragons of the Klu Kulx Klan like the Democratic party has.

A lover of the party of Strom Thurmond is going to say this with a straight face?

Frazzled wrote:This discussion can't go anywhere.

Not if you make comments like the previous which are full of fail.

Frazzled wrote:Never argue with a true believer.

If we followed that maxim with you, you'd have a very boring time here on the Off-Topic Forum.

Frazzled wrote:Edit: yes we're much less conservative now...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html

If you refer to the woman, whack-jobs are neither liberal nor conservative. So, fail.

If you are referring to smoking bans, um...that's actually a point in my column, Fraz, not yours. Smoking bans are downright progressive policy and reform, considering there are serious health risks involved.

But you took your ball and went home so we can't debate the point, I guess.

(waits for door that just swung closed behind Fraz to swing back open, "Flounce" sign in hand)

Cairnius wrote:

Thor665 wrote:There is a difference between a factual error and a lie. I'll prove a lie - in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 the film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. Moore's narration states, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'" The impression left is that the major news groups (CBS and CNN) had called for Gore, but that FOX came in, called for Bush, and managed by dint of, I dunno, peer pressure to get the other stations to call for Bush.

However, as easy investigation shows - the very first channels to call the Florida flip/flop in Bush's favor were...CBS and CNN. Not FOX - if anything they convinced FOX, not the other way around.

However, there is no "factual error" above because Moore never states that FOX called first. Therefore he has lied while not making a factual error. He does this for his purposes of his message and is fairly talented in how he does it, but he does it all the time in all of his movies and thus, at least in my opinion, he lies all the time in his movies irrespective of whether someone can claim $10,000 for proving a "factual error" in them.

I'd entertain the conversation but I haven't seen FHT 9/11 since it was in theaters. So, you're saying that CBS and CNN called Florida for Bush, not Gore like MM's footage depicted? I'm not sure I follow your argument.

Pretty much everyone (CNN, FOX News, et al) called for Gore prior to the close of the polls. Later on, as the night progressed, CNN and CBS led the charge for flip/flopping to Bush winning in Florida. My arguement is that Moore suggests that FOX led the charge and the others were hoodwinked.

I'd also want to refresh my memory as to what footage he used, and see some clear-cut evidence as to when what was aired.

I agree with you, it is wise not to rush into a debate before you have the evidence. There're plenty of research and investigations into the timeline that you ought to be able to locate.

Thor665 wrote:Republicans are liberals in the actual sense of what liberal means. That's why we live in the land of religious freedom with a first amendment. Republicans are conservative liberals and Democrats are progressive liberals. They are both liberals.

Republicans don't fit into the majority of any definitions of "liberal" I could find that pertain to politics:

You're making a simple error of applying U.S. Modern Liberalism to the political ideological thought of liberalism.

I would submit that you should check out this definition of classic liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals and America was founded (so sayeth the Constitution) on liberal ideals.

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

No.

Ah, so Republicans never trumpet tort reform then? You're applying a narrow definition of what you consider to be reform. Republicans do offer up and support reform legislation - though perhaps not the reforms you support.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Certainly not.

This definition, I suspect, is more guided towards Modern U.S. Liberalism and is, I believe, the definition you are arguing. i concur with your assessment here - Republicans are conservatives, Democrats are progressives.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

Inasmuch as liberalism is #1 and #2, then no.

And insomuch as it is the definition I posted above, then yes. Different definitions can frame a debate differently.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

When they are in favor of gay marriage and pro-choice, I'll say this isn't a "No."

Because Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights, and desire no civil liberties. You are applying degrees of liberalism here, not an absolute definition of liberalism. Yes, one party is more progressive in their interpretation of liberalism. (I would also note that I, personally, do believe that a baby in the womb also shares a claim to certain civil liberties that I feel being pro choice denies. I am pro choice though, because I don't think the government should legislate morality, I keep hoping people will).

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Most certainly not. We only need look back to Bush's first term and how the Republicans demonized the anti-war crowd.

Sadly freedom of expression and the first amendment supports their right to say that they disagree with something someone else is saying. If Bush had stormtroopers march out, disperse the protesters, and banned public gatherings I would agree with you. He did not, so I do not.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Yes.

I concur.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

No. Racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are rampant in the Republican Party.

I would caution you that in terms of bigotry you appear quite comfrotable painting those identified with a certain political leaning as racist, homophobic, xenophobes without clarifying that perhaps it is a small minority (or majority) and probably not the whole shebang. I would also note that this is not a political aspect of liberalism, and would also be impressed to meet someone totally free of all prejudice (I know I am not).

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

My God, no. "Strict constructionism" is a Republican judicial tenet.

The entire concept of America was a non-conventional ideal. I would submit most Republicans are quite enamored by American ideals.
I'm also going to presume you meant Constitutionalism not constructionism (I do believe in social constructionist thought - but I am unaware of a large Republican methodology behind it). As far as how #11 relates to interpretation of the Constitution, you are again getting away from an actual political definition of liberalism. There are many Democrats who belive the Constitution is an important and sacred document just as there are many Republicans who accept it as a living document.

I would probably argue that, in the context of any discussion of modern American politics, i.e. "about Republicans," that "U.S. Modern" is an implied modifier for "Liberalism" and that any other definition is nonsensical and moot for that, specific context.

I would argue that any "reform" sought by the Republicans is extremely narrow in scope. Progressives, the far Left, trumpet "reform" across the board. That's what I think most Americans think of as "reform," something which is far-reaching even if in only one arena, so for instance tort reform versus an overhaul of the entire health care system. Conservative versus liberal views.

On the free speech...we're not discussing just Bush. We're discussing "Republicans," meaning "everyone registered Republican in America," and then can go on nothing but the mode of their behavior. Republicans do not tolerate dissent unless they're the ones dissenting. The levels of nationalism in their Party are tremendous...any criticism of the war in Iraq during the early years was compared to treason. That's not a support of free speech. The racism and homophobia in their Party are also outspoken. Conservative Republicans favor banning books in schools and public libraries...this is not "liberalism" even in the classic sense you linked to as it inhibits freedom.

I would argue that tolerance of difference of race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation are most certainly aspects of political liberalism in this context...and that the absence of such are aspects of conservative thought.

When I am discussing politics with my relatives who aren't particularly educated, and they ask what the difference is between "liberal" and "conservative" thought, I break it down like this because it is largely true: "Liberals wants to change things, and Conservatives want to keep things as they are." The abolition and women's suffrage movements were liberal in the classic sense. The political opposition to these things was conservative - don't rock the boat, stay the course, things are fine as they are. The civil rights movement was liberal in the classic sense. The political opposition to this movement was conservative. Peace movement during vietnam, liberal. Opposition, conservative. The Left wanted to change the status quo, the Right wanted to keep things as they were.

Tolerance is very much a change, always. It means taking in and accepting "others" who are not like you and attempting to make them cease to be "others" and become part of a new "status quo." Racists, sexists, and homophobes are what they are because they are afraid of this new status quo because it clashes with their prejudices.

You see many Democrats championing tolerance. I can't remember the last time I saw Republicans doing so. It is quite fair to slap this label on the Republican Party as a whole - and I would also hazard that this sort of thing has a huge influence in why so many Republican-leaning independents abandoned the Party in the first place, because they may be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.
Just like many Democratic-leaning independents have abandoned their Party for the same reason, I would also hazard.

No, I meant "Strict constructionist." Perhaps I have the verbiage wrong, but I mean the judicial philosophy that we, modern Americans, should not seek to "interpret" the Constitution like a liberal judicial doctrine would but rather to stick to the letter of the law as much as possible. Republican appointees to the Federal judiciary do not, by and large, consider the Constitution a living document...but all Americans in politics and law believe the document to be sacred and important. I don't quite see why you would point out that Democrats believe this as if liberalism would dictate otherwise.

Thor665 wrote: would also note that this is not a political aspect of liberalism, and would also be impressed to meet someone totally free of all prejudice (I know I am not).

Don't you start up with your hatred of Canada again, not matter how justified.

Cairnius wrote:Many things.

I would again note that you are confusing liberalism with progressive liberalism, and are choosing to define conservatism as an entire political idealogy (which it is not as there can be conservative socialists just as there can be progressive socialists). However, if you choose to define liberalism the way you do - then, yes, you are correct with your chosen definition (though I note you're describing Modern U.S. Liberalism and even if you are it fails to not make Republicans liberal as well - just not Modern U.S. Liberals). I disagree that my definition is nonsensical however, as it is a most assuredly correct definition.

As far as the other political stuff I suppose I will settle for a simple - I disagree with your current assessment.

As far as Constructivism you did mean Constitutionalist as I posited in my previous post. A strict Constitutionalist viewpoint is one that calls for a strict (RAW if you will) way to look at The Constitution. Constructivism is more of a theory about how thought is formed (and a fascinating one at that).

Ahtman wrote:Don't you start up with your hatred of Canada again, not matter how justified.

But...but...their leaf thing and...oh very well, you win this round. But we shall meet again, sir, we shall meet again.

I don't like Michael Moore. He's about as bad as the scum that make up Fox news.

His solution to the northern ireland peace process was really quite idiotic, even for a joke.

One cannot hate the greatness of Canada which brings us the greatness of maple syrup and the greatness of donuts, melded into a fusion of mega awesome greatness that is maple covered donuts!!!!

We and Canada should totally team up.

Frazzled wrote:Thats actually incorrect. We are substantially more concservative than the 1800s.

pffttt yeah, right. Because all the gays, blacks and women/minority of your choice. were so free back then yeah ?
What year did Texas introduce its infamous sodomy law ..and what year did it get amend it ? Hell it was only last year Texas allowed the selling of "sex toys" by "normal " people. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/national/main3829467.shtml



http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html


I guess you have substantially less lynchings now than in the past, but nothing says oppression than illegal and well left behin mob justice usuall dished out on racial grounds.

Cairnius wrote:
Republicans aren't liberals. "Liberal" in its broadest context means "open to respecting many perspectives."

I take it you failed any and all of the political theory courses you've taken.

Whoa, wrong thread.

Frazzled wrote: Sisyphus

Cairnius wrote: Stone

Hilarity ensues.

I just read this whole thread and want my 30 minutes back.

There were some particularly amusing statements made though:

"Republicans do not tolerate dissent unless they're the ones dissenting" as Nancy Pelosi does her best to Demonize and silence talk radio hosts for daring to allow people to express opposition to Health Care Hijacking.

"Liberals wants to change things, and Conservatives want to keep things as they are." Unless you are talking about the desire to reduce government spending... we can't change that.

Let me just say this: Those of you that are focused on "Dem vs. GOP" are missing the boat. Oh sure, Michael Moore is a fat hypocritical slob... but what is the real issue here? The puppetmasters in Washington, DC are playing you for fools and you willingly go along. Both sides of the aisle are fleecing you and you just focus on the petty issues while they pick your pockets.

I venture all but a rare few here wouldn't know real freedom if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

reds8n wrote:
I guess you have substantially less lynchings now than in the past, but nothing says oppression than illegal and well left behin mob justice usuall dished out on racial grounds.

Reddy you're full of it. We haven't hung any horse thieves since yesterday.

.. and what a birthday party that was !

And its cheap pissy lager and chips and pukka steak and kidney pie I'm full of so NYAHNYAHNYAH !

reds8n wrote: .. and what a birthday party that was !

And its cheap pissy lager and chips and pukka steak and kidney pie I'm full of so NYAHNYAHNYAH !

See if it had been cheap tequila and fajitas we wouldn't have this problem.

True, but work would tomorrow.

dogma wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
Republicans aren't liberals. "Liberal" in its broadest context means "open to respecting many perspectives."

I take it you failed any and all of the political theory courses you've taken.

No way man! Didn't you know "liberal" has only one meaning, the one that American media has assigned to it! You must be thinking of liverals, they are different.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

reds8n wrote:True, but work would tomorrow.

yes work has a way of ruining, but it does pay the bills. Well, that and other things (DON"T LOOK IN THE BOX!)

The Green Git wrote:
Let me just say this: Those of you that are focused on "Dem vs. GOP" are missing the boat.

Good Christ, we agree on something!

The Green Git wrote:
I venture all but a rare few here wouldn't know real freedom if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

And then the war begins anew.

While I don't find CNSnews.com to be a very respectable news source, they did recently interview Michael Moore, and on the video he said that, "capitalism did nothing for me." I am gonna go ahead and call hypocrisy right there....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

Well then MM-cheesbuger.... we meet again... wait.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833 wrote:“You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

Is he.... ummm... MM-dude, that makes no sense. Capitalism is the system where you do all of those things, Socialism is the system where you can do all of those things, but you are really not supposed too; or something like that. This cat has officially confuzzled me with his rhetoric, the rhetoric of DOOM!!! DOOM AND DISASTER... and cheeseburgers too.

Technically, the system is set up to help people like him, but more often than not, at the measly price of your soul. Not a big cost, but a cost nonetheless .

Micheal Moore... meet Capitalism... and love it. In a fish bowl, only the strong survive... but we are not in a fish bowl man... why would you even say fish bowl. That made no damn sense. Or. Did. It.



"Note"
Invest or be punished unscrupulously, and with lots of spikey bits... lots of them.

"Sub-note"
Yep, not particularly surprising, I must say.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117923/

Wrex every post of yours sounds like an idiot with the mind of Einstein (in a good way)

CHEERS MATE!!! WOOT!!!

I dunno, I find Wrex's posts really hard to read most of the time. (hope that's not too offensive to you)

Thor665 wrote:I would again note that you are confusing liberalism with progressive liberalism, and are choosing to define conservatism as an entire political idealogy (which it is not as there can be conservative socialists just as there can be progressive socialists).

Again, this is about context. I am discussing the American political spectrum. You can discuss something else, but I'm not interested in that at the moment. On the American political spectrum, Republicans are conservatives, and Democrats are liberals.

Your definition is a broad definition that would be appropriate for, say, a discussion of global political thought. Even if we were to go that route, the United States would be rather conservative compared to Europe. What America was and what it is are entirely different things. The Founders were extremely "liberal" for their day, but 21st century America is not a liberal place politically. Socially we are increasingly liberal, but even then not overwhelmingly so. There are plenty of hold-outs from the 20th century, and will be for quite some time.

Thor665 wrote:As far as Constructivism you did mean Constitutionalist as I posited in my previous post. A strict Constitutionalist viewpoint is one that calls for a strict (RAW if you will) way to look at The Constitution. Constructivism is more of a theory about how thought is formed (and a fascinating one at that).

I meant "constructionist:"

One method of interpreting the U.S. Constitution is called constitutional construction. Some interpreters of the Constitution favor a strict or narrow construction of the document. Strict constructionists interpret the Constitution according to their views of the framers' original intentions about the various parts of the document. Strict constructionists also tend to emphasize the literal meaning of the words of the Constitution.

JEB_Stuart wrote:While I don't find CNSnews.com to be a very respectable news source, they did recently interview Michael Moore, and on the video he said that, "capitalism did nothing for me." I am gonna go ahead and call hypocrisy right there....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

You took that comment WAY out of context. MM was saying that "capitalism" didn't help him publish his book or distribute his films, aspects of the system tried to suppress both.

In essence, he's right...a capitalist system should seek to distribute any and all products which will generate a profit, therefore "capitalism" (although using the term like this as if it were a person exercising the power to not distribute a book or release a film is kind of stupid) should have encouraged MM to produce his work, as it always makes money.

Aspects of the system did not do so, and so taken in context his comment makes sense. You need to take it in context, however...reprint half the article when you make the quotation and then there's no hypocrisy to call. Bad form.

You just did what MM is often accused of doing, i.e. twisting facts around to make a case...but I'm pretty sure everyone here does that on a regular basis.

The Green Git wrote:Let me just say this: Those of you that are focused on "Dem vs. GOP" are missing the boat. Oh sure, Michael Moore is a fat hypocritical slob... but what is the real issue here? The puppetmasters in Washington, DC are playing you for fools and you willingly go along. Both sides of the aisle are fleecing you and you just focus on the petty issues while they pick your pockets.

I venture all but a rare few here wouldn't know real freedom if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

No offense, but you don't seem to understand that Thor and I are discussing political theory, not having a real discussion of the merits or issues of the two major political parties in America.

I personally hate them both. I think that liberals/progressives need to abandon the Democratic party and form their own, conservatives need to let the Republican party go and form their own for the Sarah Palin types, and then the remaining moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans can decide whether they have enough in common to form their own, unified party or remain separate.

Then we move to a system of proportional representation and see what happens...I think our system of government itself is part of the problem and needs some revision.

Liberal in the United States doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does.

It just means economically left-wing, 'culturally progressive', or whatever the DFL is currently doing.